From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,38fc011071df5a27
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-06 18:16:05 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp3.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.gbronline.com!news.gbronline.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 20:19:29 -0500
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 20:16:32 -0500
From: Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com>
Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com
Organization: Ain't no organization here!
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
 rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es-mx, pt-br, fr-ca
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X
References: <6a90b886.0305262344.1d558079@posting.google.com>
 <bebbba07.0305311049.753bb8f0@posting.google.com>
 <KvydnZ2dnunHfUej4p2dnA@gbronline.com>
 <bebbba07.0306022127.46f6c998@posting.google.com>
 <3EDCBDF4.1050900@attbi.com>
 <bebbba07.0306031420.69c20f71@posting.google.com>
 <BB02E370.30D1%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <bebbba07.0306031837.4c7de732@posting.google.com> <uadcxwzhi.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <bebbba07.0306041438.6cf89e79@posting.google.com>
 <CYOdnX4qp9noC0KjXTWcoA@gbronline.com>
 <bebbba07.0306061010.52fb3fb5@posting.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <bebbba07.0306061010.52fb3fb5@posting.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <URSdnWKkO4E8oHyjXTWcqQ@gbronline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.117.18.117
X-Trace: 
 sv3-yQYQWWUyjfJhmvkPl1UchhavRUSwAKbba7Yq7dBPSXBwFVy87vAzrXQ50QYRI19TFbUcmXp98vI2xfK!lkYtBTLasYE+GIgmmajQ8ZwggjgZKtdRgDkzjACtG/wNuwbfyhkap8Y4Dy5mYQqSc+XdON7DA5qU!GtqjGA==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38777
Date: 2003-06-06T20:16:32-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> Nor did I ever claim that "+=" is "always more efficient." Of course
> that would be nonsense -- I could put an infinite loop in the freakin'
> thing if I wanted to!

But you seemed to say that Ada should have
A += B _because_ it is more efficient than A := A + B

> In C++, I believe it is true that
>     A = A + B
> cannot be implemented any more efficiently than
>     temp = A
>     temp += B
>     A = temp

Ah, now we get to the root of the argument.
C++ allows (or requires?) the two to be implemented
differently.  So indeed, it is conceivable that in
C++ one would be more efficient than the other.

But Ada does not define it at all, and it is highly
unlikely that a new Ada construct defined to have the
same result as another would be _required_ to have a
different implementation.

And it is unlikely, if it is _allowed_ (but not required)
to have a different implementation, that the vendor (or
programmer, as the case may be) would intentionally
design, code, and test two implementations of the same thing.